U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which of these would be the best Texas Triangle regional high-speed transit network?
A 4 21.05%
B 4 21.05%
C 1 5.26%
D 5 26.32%
E 3 15.79%
F 2 10.53%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2013, 03:11 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,109,839 times
Reputation: 3117

Advertisements

What the heck is in Bryant Texas that both trains need to go there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2013, 03:32 PM
 
642 posts, read 962,082 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
C and D would mean there would be 3 routes going along the Fort Worth-Dallas corridor, one from Waco to Arlington to Dallas, one from Waco to Arlington to Fort Worth and one from Dallas to Fort Worth... unless travelling along one of those routes will require a transfer which is not so good. I thought it would be easier to just have one route instead of three, going from Waco to the most important city first (Dallas), then Arlington and Fort Worth.
I was thinking Arlington seemed like a good consolidation point for the whole DFW metro, and since it is directly north of Waco it seemed like a good 'gateway to the south.' I do see your point though about the inconvenience of either Dallas or Ft Worth having to transfer up there.

Here's an updated version of C which now connects through Dallas and includes Bryan/College Station:


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 03:39 PM
 
642 posts, read 962,082 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
What the heck is in Bryant Texas that both trains need to go there?
Bryan/College Station has Texas A&M and a metro population of 230,000.

The reason why both trains were going there in my response to nei though was to connect San Antonio/Austin to Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 04:21 PM
 
195 posts, read 235,640 times
Reputation: 247
Looks like the plans on the table right now are just going to be from Houston-Dallas.

Houston-Dallas could get $10 billion bullet train | Newswatch | a Chron.com blog

Texas Central Railway

Some politicians in North Texas want it to connect to Ft. Worth as well. Honestly that seems pointless. They're so close to each other, a high speed rail would be unnecessary. It would probably only get up to 80 mph if it were going to stop in Arlington as well. Plus land would be more expensive, and tunneling or building bridges over roads would also add more to the cost.


Quote:
The company, which is backed by the firm that built the world-renowned Central Japan Railway Co., is seeking roughly $10 billion in private investment to open Texas high-speed rail by 2020.

The group says it won't ask for state or federal funding, though North Texas officials are learning that extending the service into inner cities will cost more than the private sector is willing to put in.

Read more here: Officials wrangle over high-speed rail study | Your Commute | News from Fort Worth, Dall...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 05:25 PM
 
642 posts, read 962,082 times
Reputation: 505
Here's yet another updated version of C which now includes the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA (population 379,231):


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 11:43 PM
 
541 posts, read 498,461 times
Reputation: 670
"A".

Except no need to stop at Waco. It's not important enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 04:22 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,519,549 times
Reputation: 15955
Fantasize as much as you like, nome of it is likely to develop anytme soon.

The driving force behind mass transit isn't speed, it's congestion, as has been demonstrated in places like California, New Jersey, Long Island and South Florida. And has been demonstrated in the Dallas-Arlington-Fort Worth corridor in recent years. But once the projects extend beyind certain parameters of density, other economic forces, particularly the high initial cost and the resistance of people who movrd to the "exurbs" to escape many of the societal trends under way in the inner cities, begin to be felt. At best, you might see more light rail, as I understand is currenlly being proposed for emerging corridor markets such as Dallas-Denton.

Assuming current trends in the price of fuel continue to implel cost-conscious, young, increasingly-single adults toward smaller, boxier, far-less-comfortable vehicles, and assuming those cars will continue to have to share the highways with 80,000-lb, 18-wheel mastodons, we might see the disappearance of the preference for personal autos for longer trips, and that might fuel the development of intermediate-distance rail in stages. But it's going to take a long time, just as the Boston-Washington "Northeast Corridor" has been under development for fifty years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,155,791 times
Reputation: 2341
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
One can already drive pretty fast in Texas, but it's never going to approach HSR speed.
Hi HandsUpThumbsDown--

Oh, I'm fully aware that if the posted speed limit is 85, then the cars will be pushing 90+.

I'm not sure that HSR will be nearly as fast as the advocates claim it will be, and top speed is in no way indicative of average speed.

I can guarantee that a proposed Texas HSR network would be constrained by similar issues that Acela faces - that it's limited in speed in built up areas (urban, suburban, and exurban), probably limited to 70-80 MPH or less. Even if you discount the NIMBY factor, there's design limitations due to whatever right of way you can manage to acquire. Add in the stops - time it takes to fully unload and reload hundreds of passengers, and I don't think that even a trans-Texas HSR would be any faster than driving on the Interstate (and due to the immense capital cost up-front, train tickets would likely be more expensive than gassing a car up).

You're faced then with the second issue of getting around once you arrive in your destination - I'm not too familiar with Houston, Austin, or Dallas' transit solutions, but I'm willing to wager that the smaller metro's (Bryan, Waco) don't have nearly the same level of transit service - leaving you to call a cabbie or rent a car.

The proposed HSR lines in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida would all have averaged in the ~79 MPH range (mercifully, all those were scuppered). And cars could make just as good time as those HSR lines - and have freedom to get around once you arrive at your destination.


While I think this proposed route is one of the better ideas I've heard lately (since this would serve a theoretical 20 million people), I'm still not convinced that it would make economic sense. It sure is wiser than say, Orlando to Tampa, Madison to Milwaukee, or Cincinnati to Cleveland though.





EDIT: Just to humor us all, I did a quick search of Acela - a theoretical train ticket from Boston to Washington DC would cost $99.00 and take you 7 hours and 50 minutes to get there. (leaving tomorrow morning, Wednesday).

Driving, according to Google Maps, takes 441 miles and can be done in 7 hours and 19 minutes - depending on your car's fuel economy and tolls, it could well turn out to be less than $100.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 08:45 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,109,839 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
I can guarantee that a proposed Texas HSR network would be constrained by similar issues that Acela faces - that it's limited in speed in built up areas (urban, suburban, and exurban), probably limited to 70-80 MPH or less. .
Why? isn't this a new mostly-from-scratch line that is going to be built? The Acela runs in a 140-year-old right of way in the only continuious corridor of congestion in the US. There is no comparison.

Additionally (I'm sure you don't care) MPG is terrible at 90 mph, in any vehicle with rubber tires. It's an extremely inefficient way to travel fast. Why allocate public money to that - simply in the name of individualism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
Add in the stops - time it takes to fully unload and reload hundreds of passengers, and I don't think that even a trans-Texas HSR would be any faster than driving on the Interstate (and due to the immense capital cost up-front, train tickets would likely be more expensive than gassing a car up)..
Absolutely they will. Or else it won't get built. HSR isn't a milk run either, it will make far fewer stops than your average regional train.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
The proposed HSR lines in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida would all have averaged in the ~79 MPH range (mercifully, all those were scuppered).)..
Yes and all of those were in densely developed areas, not the plains of TX.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 08:53 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,109,839 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post

EDIT: Just to humor us all, I did a quick search of Acela - a theoretical train ticket from Boston to Washington DC would cost $99.00 and take you 7 hours and 50 minutes to get there. (leaving tomorrow morning, Wednesday).

Driving, according to Google Maps, takes 441 miles and can be done in 7 hours and 19 minutes - depending on your car's fuel economy and tolls, it could well turn out to be less than $100.
Humoring your cherrypicked humor (in which you assume travel time in the most congested part of the country will somehow mimic what is possible in the dusty prairie of texas), you'd better leave at about 11 pm if you wish to take 7 hours and 19 minutes by car and avoid traffic delays. And even then, you could get stuck on the Cross Bronx Expressway. I've been in bumper to bumper traffic there at 2 am. It also doesn't account for fuel ups, rest, food. Looking at about ~$30 in tolls, and you'd have to be getting around 30 mpg highway to make it there under $100 in gas and tolls. That's above average.

But most travelers aren't going from Washington to Boston. Most go Washington to New York, or Boston to New York.

ETA with two weeks advance purchase, a regional train (7 hours, 44 minutes) costs $70. Acela (6 hours, 40 minutes) is $167.00. Boston is not the best place to drive or the cheapest to park, also.

Last edited by HandsUpThumbsDown; 01-29-2013 at 09:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top